Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Association (the NFLPA) has defied binding precedent squarely foreclosing its premature suit.
This Court lacks jurisdiction and the NFLPA lacks standing to raise the claims or seek the relief
Rather than awaiting the completion of the pending arbitration proceeding and filing a
Federal Arbitration Act challenge in the United States court in and for the district wherein the
award was made, 9 U.S.C. 10here, the Southern District of New Yorkthe NFLPA asks
this Court to restrain a forthcoming award. But abundant and consistent Fifth Circuit
precedent confirms that federal courts lack power to vacate an award that has not yet been
made.
The NFLPA also lacks standing to seek a contingent order preemptively challenging an
award that clearly has not yet (and may never) cause it or Ezekiel Elliott any harm. And the
1
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2828
NFLPAs claim is unripe to boot, as even the NFLPA acknowledges that the Arbitrators
forthcoming award could still afford the NFLPA all the relief it seeks.
founded on the belief that, in a strategic attempt to obtain first-filed status, it is free to file a
and simply abandoned if it wins. The NFLPA makes this clear in its application for a TRO:
Although the Court need not act until the Award is issued, the NFLPA will satisfy the
requirements for preliminary injunctive relief should Elliotts appeal be denied. (ECF #5,
NFLPA Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction (herein,
TRO Motion) at 1 (emphases added).) In other words, the NFLPA has moved for a TRO
while acknowledging that there is not yet any basis to award one. Needless to say, federal court
jurisdictionincluding the limits set forth in Article III of the U.S. Constitutionis not so easily
manipulated. There is no such thing as a placeholder complaint: Because the district court
must have jurisdiction at the commencement of the suit, the amendment process [for
pleadings] cannot be used to create jurisdiction retroactively where it did not previously exist.
United States ex rel. Jamison v. McKesson Corp., 649 F.3d 322, 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (formatting
modified; quoting Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hillman, 796 F.2d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 1986)). Nor
can a party rely on events that unfolded after the filing of the complaint to establish its
standing. Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao, 418 F.3d 453, 458 (5th Cir. 2005).
Not only does the NFLPA concede it knows better, it has made precisely this argument in
almost identical litigation brought against the NFLPA. Late last year, the NFLPA criticized a
player for filing a federal lawsuit over his pending arbitration concerning his potential
discipline, arguing that he should have file[d] a petition to vacate the arbitration decision after
2
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 2829
it is issued rather than asking a Court to intrude upon an ongoing labor arbitration proceeding.
(herein, NFLPA Position Statement) at 6, Michael Pennel, Jr. v. NFLPA, No. 5:16-CV-02889-
JRA (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2016, ECF #8) (emphasis in original).) The players lawsuit, the
NFLPA emphasized, asked the federal district court to prematurely and improperly invade the
labor and arbitral processes for which the NFL and NFLPA bargained. (Id.) (Of course, filing a
premature lawsuit lacking in subject matter jurisdiction is also a significant waste of the
The NFLPA was right the first time. After the award issuesand if it sustains Elliotts
suspension in whole or in parta federal district court with jurisdiction over an action by a party
with standing may consider whether the arbitration award should be vacated, modified, or
confirmed in a new suit filed at that time. But this Court plainly lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate
this petition to vacate the forthcoming award in this suitregardless of when the award comes
down. Because Plaintiffs cannot resuscitate jurisdiction based on events that unfolded after the
filing of the complaint, this Court lacks jurisdiction, the NFLPA lacks standing, and this Court
The issue for decision is whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide
Petitioner NFLPAs Petition to Vacate. The NFLPA seeks vacatur of a forthcoming arbitration
award that has not yet issued. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the hypothetical
award (which is determined as of the commencement of the lawsuit), the NFLPA lacks standing
to seek vacatur of a hypothetical award, and any dispute over the hypothetical award is not ripe.
3
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 2830
BACKGROUND
On August 11, 2017, the NFL Commissioner suspended Elliott for six games for conduct
detrimental to the NFL in violation of Article 46 of the parties collective bargaining agreement
(CBA). (ECF #1, Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award (Pet.) 28.) Elliotts suspension
information from twenty-two NFL interviews, reviews of photographic and other documentary
evidence from law enforcement authorities, and opinions from two medical examiners, and
resulted in the issuance of a 164-page investigative report. (Pet. 33, 36.) The
Commissioners disciplinary decision found substantial and persuasive evidence that [Elliott]
engaged in physical violence against the victim, Tiffany Thompson, on at least three separate
Elliott appealed pursuant to the CBAs collectively bargained internal grievance process.
(Id. 8.) By operation of the CBA, the suspension cannot go into effect until that process is
complete. (Id. 28.) Pursuant to those collectively bargained procedures, the NFL
The Arbitrator has authority under the CBA to affirm, reduce, or vacate Elliotts suspension.
(ECF #1-62, (Kessler Decl., Ex. A-NFLPA-58), Art. 46.) The Arbitrators appeal decision
known as an awardmust be rendered [a]s soon as practicable. (Id. Art. 46 2(d)). Once
issued, that award constitutes full, final and complete disposition of the dispute that is
binding on all parties, as well as the NFL Management Council (NFLMC) and the NFLPA.
The NFLPAs appeal hearing lasted three days, from August 29 through 31. (Pet. 68.)
The NFLPA asked the Arbitrator to overturn [the suspension] because theres no credible
evidence. (ECF #2-13, Kessler Decl, Ex. C, Hearing Tr. (Day 1) at 77.). In the alternative, the
4
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 2831
NFLPA asked the Arbitrator to reduce Elliotts suspension on the grounds that the victims
conduct and behavior provoked Elliott and should be a mitigating factor. (Id. at 77-80.) Counsel
for the NFLMC argued that the six-game suspension should be affirmed.
On the same day the appeal hearing concludedbut before the Arbitrator issued his
awardthe NFLPA filed the instant suit seeking to vacate the forthcoming Arbitration
Award. (Pet. at 1.) The following day, the NFLPA filed an application for a Temporary
Restraining Order, which clarified that it actually seeks to vacate the forthcoming award only to
the extent it loses in arbitration: the NFLPA respectfully requests that the Court preliminarily
enjoin any suspension of Elliott affirmed by the Award[.] (TRO Motion at 15 (emphasis
ARGUMENT
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this Petition: no statute provides
jurisdiction to review a hypothetical award, the NFLPA lacks standing to seek vacatur of a
hypothetical award, and a dispute over the hypothetical award is not ripe. Accordingly, this
Court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief can be
Neither The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), nor the Labor Management Relations Act
(LMRA), provides this Court with jurisdiction to review forthcoming arbitration awards.
1. The FAA permits parties to vacate arbitration awards that have been made. 9
U.S.C. 10. It does not permit parties to file placeholder petitions to vacate forthcoming,
5
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 2832
That commonsense conclusion follows from the FAAs text, which permits district courts
to vacat[e] the award in the district wherein the award was made. 9 U.S.C. 10 (emphasis
added). Thus, [b]y its own terms, 10 authorizes court action only after a final award is made
by the arbitrator. Folse v. Richard Wolf Med. Instruments Corp., 56 F.3d 603, 605 (5th Cir.
1995); see, e.g., Howard v. Volunteers of Am., 34 F. App'x 150, 2002 WL 493896, at *1 (5th Cir.
Mar. 11, 2002) ([W]e do not have jurisdiction to reach merits of 10 claim [b]ecause no final
award has been issued.); Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping, S.A., 624 F.2d 411, 414 (2d Cir.
1980) (district court is without authority to review the validity of arbitrators rulings prior to the
making of an award); Northland Truss Sys., Inc. v. Henning Const. Co., LLC, 808 F. Supp. 2d
The NFLPA concedes that there is no final award here, but rather merely a
forthcoming one. (See Pet. at 1 (defined term Award actually refers to forthcoming
arbitration award); id. (noting that award will be issued by Arbitrator Harold Henderson
imminently); TRO Motion at 1 (The NFLPA expects that on or before September 5, Arbitrator
Harold Henderson will issue an arbitral decision (the Award) . . . .); id. at 8 (The Award will
rest . . . .) (emphases added).) Where, as here, a petitioner concedes that there is no final
award, the FAA provides no relief. See Folse, 56 F.3d at 606 ([O]ur directive in this case is
clear: these facts do not permit us to intervene until the parties see this arbitration through to a
final award.). And because the amendment process [for pleadings] cannot be used to create
jurisdiction retroactively where it did not previously exist, Jamison, 649 F.3d at 328 (quotation
marks omitted), the NFLPA cannot cure this fatal jurisdictional defect by attempting to amend
6
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 2833
The NFLPA seems to suggest that its petition should survive because it is challenging the
forthcoming award on fairness grounds. That argument, too, is squarely foreclosed by binding
precedent: Because objections to the nature of arbitral proceedings are for the arbitrator to
decide in the first instance, any [f]airness objections should generally be made to the arbitrator
subject only to limited post-arbitration judicial review as set forth in section 10 of the FAA.
Gulf Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 304 F.3d 476, 487 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Hooters of Am., Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933, 94041 (4th Cir. 1999)). Simply put, there is no
authority under the FAA for a court to entertain such [fairness] challenges prior to issuance of
2. Nor can the NFLPA sidestep the FAAs plain terms by seeking vacatur under Section
301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. 185 (LMRA). The law is clear that [f]ederal courts lack
jurisdiction to decide cases alleging violations of a collective bargaining agreement under the
Labor Management Relations Act by an employee against his employer unless the employee has
exhausted contractual procedures for redress. Meredith v. Louisiana Fedn of Teachers, 209
F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added; citation omitted). Where, as here, an arbitration
procedure is the exclusive and final remedy for breach of the collective bargaining agreement,
the employee may not sue his employer under 301 until he has exhausted the procedure.
Daigle v. Gulf State Utilities Co., Local Union No. 2286, 794 F.2d 974, 977 (5th Cir. 1986).
Such a procedure is not exhausted until the arbitration award has become final and complete.
See Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 56263 (1976) ( Congress has specified
. . . that (f)inal adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable
method for settlement of grievance disputes, and that policy can only be effectuated if the
grievance procedure is given full play. (quotations omitted)); see, e.g., Johnson v. Ceres Gulf,
7
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 2834
Inc., No. 4:13-CV-1851, 2015 WL 1518955, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2015) (It is undisputed
that Johnson did not complete the arbitration procedure pursuant to the CBA and that she has not
exhausted her administrative remedies.). Yet the NFLPA filed this lawsuit despite admitting
that it has failed to fully exhaust Article 46s exclusive grievance procedures.
The NFLPA can hardly claim to be unaware of this finality requirement. Barely nine
months ago, the NFLPA criticized a plaintiff who filed an action challenging the pending
arbitration concerning his potential discipline on the ground that he was seek[ing] to stop the
arbitration appeal process in its tracks. (NFLPA Position Statement at 6.) The NFLPA
continued:
The normal course would be for Plaintiff to file a petition to vacate the arbitration
decision after it is issued rather than asking a Court to intrude upon an ongoing
labor arbitration proceeding. *** Plaintiff asks this Court to prematurely and
improperly invade the labor and arbitral processes for which the NFL and
NFLPA bargained.
Id. (first emphasis in original). Those words are just as true today as when the NFLPA wrote
them last year. By asking this Court to intrude upon an ongoing labor arbitration proceeding,
the NFLPA is now the one improperly invading the parties collective bargaining agreement
and flouting Fifth Circuit precedent in the process. This action should be dismissed immediately.
The NFLPA lacks standing to challenge the forthcoming award regardless. The
Constitutions cases and controversies restriction requires any party invoking federal
jurisdiction to demonstrate standingi.e., the personal interest that must exist at the
commencement of the litigation. Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 732 (2008) (emphasis added;
quotation omitted); see Mollan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 537, 539 (1824) (jurisdiction
depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought). In Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, the Supreme Court explained that demonstrating the irreducible constitutional
8
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 2835
minimum of standing requires a plaintiff to show an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to
the defendants actions, and that will likely . . . be redressed by a favorable decision. 504 U.S.
555, 560-61 (1992) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, each plaintiff must
demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought.
Here, the NFLPA brings only one claim and seeks only one form of relief: vacatur of the
forthcoming award under 9 U.S.C. 10. (See Pet. 85-87 (Prayer for Relief).) But the NFLPA
lacks standing to seek that form of relief. Under the parties CBA, Elliotts suspension is
enjoined until after an award is issued. Until then, the NFLPA and Elliott have suffered no injury
whatsoevernever mind one traceable to a phantom award that has yet to be issued. Nor could
any decision of this court redress that supposed injury, considering there is no award to vacate.
Because the NFLPA lacks standing, its lone claim, and lone request for relief, must be dismissed.
See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013) (Article III demands that an actual
Perhaps recognizing this deficiency, the NFLPA emphasizes that it expects the award
to issue imminently and therefore the Court need not act until the award is issued. (TRO
Motion at 1.) The NFLPA, in other words, has demanded a TRO before there is anything for the
Court to enjoin. But the issuance of the award in the future is irrelevant to whether the NFLPA
has standing now. Because standing is determined as of the commencement of the suit, the
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court cannot rely on events that unfolded after the filing of
the complaint to establish its standing. Kitty Hawk, 418 F.3d at 458 (emphasis added). As the
Fifth Circuit and others have squarely held, alleged injuries that occur for the first time after a
complaint was filed simply have no bearing on the standing inquiry. See id. at 459-60 (because
9
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 2836
the contract had not yet been terminated when Kitty Hawk filed this suit and Kitty Hawk had
not assumed liability for any back pay, Kitty Hawks assumption of the Postal Services
liability for back pay is not relevant to the standing analysis (emphasis added)); see, e.g.,
Yamada v. Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182, 1203, 1203 (9th Cir. 2015) (rejecting plaintiffs argument
that it now has standing after a change in law because [s]tanding is determined as of the
commencement of litigation (alteration in original)); Utah Assn of Counties v. Bush, 455 F.3d
1094, 1101 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting glaring problem that alleged injury could not have
occurred until after the time th[is] action [wa]s brought (alterations in original)); Park v.
Forest Serv. of U.S., 205 F.3d 1034, 1037 (8th Cir. 2000) (events occurring after plaintiff filed
her original complaint not relevant on the issue of standing to seek injunction); Perry v.
Village of Arlington Heights, 186 F.3d 826, 830 (7th Cir. 1999) (It is not enough for Perry to
attempt to satisfy the requirements of standing as the case progresses. The requirements of
standing must be satisfied from the outset and in this case, they were not.).
Once a final award issues, and if it actually affirms Elliotts suspension as the NFLPA
expects, the NFLPA could try again to petition to vacate the awardjust as Respondents may
petition to confirm it. See Yamada, 786 F.3d at 1204 & n.15 (Nothing we say today . . .
precludes [plaintiff] from bringing a future challenge given plaintiffs argument that it now has
standing.). As a matter of law, however, the NFLPA cannot cure the fatal standing defect that
currently exists based on events that post-date its Petition. See Camsoft Data Sys v. S. Elecs.
Supply, Inc., 756 F.3d 327, 337 (5th Cir. 2014) (Although 28 U.S.C. 1653 and [Rule] 15(a)
allow amendments to cure defective jurisdictional allegations, these rules do not permit the
creation of jurisdiction when none existed at the time the original complaint was filed[.])
(quoting Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc., 669 F.3d 214, 218 (5th Cir. 2012)).
10
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 2837
Even if the NFLPA could surmount the foregoing hurdles, its claims are not ripe. Like
standing, [r]ipeness is a component of subject matter jurisdiction, because a court has no power
to decide disputes that are not yet justiciable. Lopez v. City of Houston, 617 F.3d 336, 341 (5th
Cir. 2010); see Miss. State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 529 F.3d 538, 545 (5th Cir. 2008)
(ripeness overlaps with standing); LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405, 413 (5th Cir. 2005)
(Standing and ripeness are two doctrines of justiciability that assure federal courts will only
distinguishing matters that are hypothetical or speculative from those that are poised for
To determine whether claims are ripe, [courts] evaluate (1) the fitness of the issues for
judicial resolution, and (2) the potential hardship to the parties caused by declining court
consideration. Lopez, 617 F.3d at 341. The NFLPA cannot satisfy either prong.
First, the issues before the Court are obviously not yet fit for judicial resolution. It is
well-settled that [a] court should dismiss a case for lack of ripeness when the case is abstract
or hypothetical. Monk v. Huston, 340 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting New Orleans Pub.
Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 833 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir. 1987)). The NFLPA freely
admits that its suit is based on hypothetical eventsits position is that the Court will have some
role at some unknown time in the future if certain contingent events occur. The NFLPA
expects that a decision will come down soon, and further expects that it will prevent
Ezekiel Elliott from participating in League games or practices. (TRO Motion at 1.) It
emphasizes that there is a threat of a suspension if the Arbitrator does not rule in its favor. (Id.
11
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 2838
at 7-8.) And it points out that if Elliotts suspension is sustained by the award, it will have
Yet during the underlying arbitration proceeding, the NFLPA urged the Arbitrator to
overturn [the suspension] because theres no credible evidence. (ECF #2-13 (Kessler Decl,
Ex. C, Hearing Tr. (Day 1) at 77).) The NFLPA participated in the arbitration and urged the
Arbitrator to rule on the evidence before him. Indeed, the NFLPA argued that the Arbitrator
should reduce or vacate Elliotts discipline based on the very same procedural and fairness
claims made here. (See, e g., ECF #2-13 (Kessler Decl, Ex. C, Hearing Tr. (Day 2) at 364-76).)
The Arbitrator has taken the NFLPAs request for relief under advisement. Accordingly, it is
for this Court to adjudicate whether to vacate a hypothetical award that might still grant the
NFLPA the very relief it sought in arbitration. If the purported injury is contingent [on] future
events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all, the claim is not ripe for
adjudication. Lopez, 617 F.3d at 34142 (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co.,
473 U.S. 568, 58081 (1985)). That the NFLPA still does not (and cannot) know whether its
claims in arbitration will prevailor whether Elliotts suspension will occur at allconfirms
that its claims are unripe. See Dealer Comp. Servs., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford, 547 F.3d 558, 562
(6th Cir. 2008) (holding petition to vacate interlocutory ruling unripe given uncertainty as to
anticipated final ruling by arbitration panel, as relief sought was anchored in future events that
may not occur as anticipated, or at all (quotation omitted)); Camsoft Data Sys, 756 F.3d at 336
(no jurisdiction over inventorship dispute before patent issues because we are unable to
establish jurisdiction based on the theory that a disputed pending patent might eventually ripen
into a patent controversy that Congress has authorized the federal courts to adjudicate).
12
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 2839
Second, given that the suspension cannot go into effect until the award issues, the NFLPA
and Elliott will suffer no hardship if this Court merely awaits the final award. Indeed, the
NFLPA concedes this point. (See TRO Motion at 1 (because the award will not inflict harm
unless it affirms suspension, the Court need not act until the Award is issued).) After all, the
NFLPA does not truly seek to vacate the award; it seeks to vacate the award if it loses in
arbitration. Thus, the NFLPA asks the Court to enjoin any suspension of Elliott [that is]
affirmed by the Award. (TRO Motion at 15; see also Pet. 9 (the NFLPA will file a motion
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to be decided before any suspension
Once the award issuesand if it harms the NFLPA and Elliottthey may attempt to seek
relief by filing a new action at that time. Until then, the NFLPA cannot graft a provision for
interlocutory judicial review onto the otherwise straight-forward regime contemplated by the
FAA[.] Savers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA, 748 F.3d
708, 722 (6th Cir. 2014). Saving all judicial review until a final award issues is consistent with
the structure of the [FAA] and with the strong federal policy favoring arbitration as an alternative
means of dispute resolution. Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC, 784 F.3d 887, 900 (2d
Cir. 2015) (quotations omitted). By contrast, the NFLPAs concededly premature filing, which
seeks interlocutory relief contingent on the possibility that the Arbitrator does not grant the
NFLPA all the relief it seeks, is foreign both to the FAA and LMRA and to the strong federal
CONCLUSION
13
Case 4:17-cv-00615-ALM Document 7 Filed 09/04/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 2840
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel L. Nash
Pro hac vice application pending
dnash@akingump.com
Nathan J. Oleson
Pro hac vice application pending
noleson@akingump.com
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 887-4000
Facsimile: (202) 887-4288
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 4th day of September, 2017, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the clerk of the court for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent
a Notice of Electronic Filing to the attorneys of record in this case who have consented in
writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means.
14